Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already announced his opposition to the president's plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and has refused to hold a hearing on any Supreme Court appointee nominated by President Obama. | AP Photo

On Gitmo, Supreme Court Obama faces same obstacle: McConnell

Two of President Barack Obama's last remaining big legacy plays — closing Guantanamo and installing a new justice on the Supreme Court — face the same formidable obstacle: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

While some view Republican opposition to Obama's Guantanamo closure plan as an organic outgrowth of public concern and grass roots fear, there was no louder or more persistent early critic of such plans than McConnell.

Story Continued Below

"The Republican Party's entire strategy since 9/11 was always being to the right of Democrats on national security. They basically bet the presidency on that," said Matt Miller, a former spokesman for Attorney General Eric Holder. "The party was not willing to give that up and McConnell clearly recognized early on that it was fertile ground on which to attack. He was out very early attacking the administration on its plan to close down Guantanamo."

Efforts to broker a compromise to close Guantanamo have often involved the idea of crafting a deal among Congressional Democrats, the White House and a few Republicans who've backed closure, such as Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Obama's latest bid was another effort to find that elusive sweet spot, though Republicans immediately rejected it on Tuesday.

However, even if such legislation could win majority support in the House or filibuster-proof support in the Senate, it's unclear how such a measure would overcome the steadfast opposition of McConnell. Just as its essentially impossible to bring a Supreme Court nominee to the floor without the consent of the Senate majority leader, it would be very difficult to move Guantanamo legislation McConnell rejects.

McConnell wasted no time Tuesday scoffing at the Gitmo closure plan Obama just sent to Capitol Hill.

"President Obama seems to remain captured on one matter by a campaign promise he made way back in 2008 — his ill-considered crusade to close the secure detention facility at Guantanamo," the majority leader said on the Senate floor. "Congress acted over and over again in a bipartisan way to reject the president’s desire to transfer dangerous terrorists to communities here in the United States.....So we’ll review President Obama’s plan, but since it includes bringing dangerous terrorists to facilities in U.S. communities, he should know that the bipartisan will of Congress has already been expressed against that proposal.”

In remarks Tuesday announcing the release of the closure proposal, Obama did not mention any specific opponents, but acknowledged fierce congressional antipathy.

"I want to say I am very clear-eyed about the hurdles to finally closing Guantanamo. The politics of this are tough," the president said. "And in Congress, I recognize, in part because of some of the fears of the public that have been fanned oftentimes by misinformation, there continues to be a fair amount of opposition to doing closing Guantanamo. If it were easy, it would have happened years ago -- as I wanted, as I have been working to try to get done. But there remains bipartisan support for closing it. And given the stakes involved for our security, this plan deserves a fair hearing."

Within days of Obama's inauguration in 2009, McConnell, then the Senate minority leader, made clear his opposition to closing Guantanamo.

"I don't think Guantanamo ought to be closed. I've been there. I think it is a perfect place for these people," the Kentucky Republican told a National Press Club luncheon on January 23, 2009. "With all due respect to the new president, it's one thing to say you're going to close Guantanamo — George W. Bush said he wanted to close Guantanamo — it does not answer the fundamental question: What are you going to do with them?....It's a very tough question. And as you know, we've had kind of mixed results with the people we've let out. I think it is pretty dangerous."

As debate on the issue intensified, McConnell eagerly led the charge against the plan, penning a Washington Post op-ed slamming Obama's policy and his vow to close the prison in his first year in office.

"Any plan to transfer or release [the prisoners] must meet a simple test: Will it keep Americans as safe as Guantanamo has? If the answer is no, the administration must explain why fulfilling a campaign promise or pleasing European critics is a more important consideration," McConnell wrote in 2009.

McConnell doubled down on the issue after two men were indicted in Kentucky in 2011 on charges of conspiring to send money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Iraq. The senator argued that the Obama Administration should have sent the men to Guantanamo, instead of prosecuting them in federal court, which he said could lead to retaliation in his home state. One of the Iraqi nationals ultimately received a life sentence. The other got a 40-year term.

Beginning in 2009, Congressional opposition helped drive several pieces of bipartisan legislation that blocked Obama's ability to bring Guantanamo prisoners to the U.S. and sharply limited his authority to send them abroad. White House officials have hinted that Obama might declare those measures unconstitutional and use his executive authority to bring prisoners to the mainland, even though he signed the legislation. However, there are numerous legal and practical obstacles to such an undertaking, so many that some Obama allies believe it is impossible.

For the moment, the administration says it is committed to overcoming Congressional opposition and passing legislation to facilitate closure.

A senior Obama Administration official who briefed reporters Tuesday said there is still "room" for dialogue with lawmakers.

"The hope is that a series of engagements around the presentation of this plan would help move the conversation forward [in order to] figure out a way that would be amenable to Congress and also fulfill the president's goal," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We think there's room for the conversation to continue."

Asked for any concrete basis for such a conclusion, the official pointed to Congress's request for the Gitmo plan in the last defense authorization bill and to the fact that the wording of restrictions on detainee transfer to other countries was relaxed in recent years to something the administration considers "less bad."

While the administration was unwilling Tuesday to concede that Guantanamo won't be closed on Obama's watch, one scenario some closure supporters have discussed is that Congress might be more open to such legislation after the November election, during the two months or so before a new president is sworn in.

If some GOP lawmakers were willing to join with Democrats, an amendment could be tacked on to defense appropriations or authorization bills or a broader spending measure, advocates say. One problem with this idea is that the amendments to such bills in the past haven't facilitated closing Gitmo, but obstructed it. The president also signed those measures, raising doubts about his commitment to closure.

Obama didn't discuss such a post-election approach directly, but did talk about resolving the issue before a new president arrives.

"Even in an election year, we should be able to have an open, honest, good-faith dialogue about how to best ensure our national security. And the fact that I’m no longer running, [Vice President Joe Biden] is no longer running, we’re not on the ballot, it gives us the capacity to not have to worry about the politics," Obama said. "I don’t want to pass this problem on to the next President, whoever it is. And if, as a nation, we don’t deal with this now, when will we deal with it? Are we going to let this linger on for another 15 years, another 20 years, another 30 years?"

Still, the president's plea seemed more like an argument than a strategy for moving seemingly-unmovable obstacles like McConnell.

"He's not a guy known for compromise anyway, but he certainly hasn't budged a bit on this issue," said Miller "Really, no one in the Republican Party has."